Re: [atheists-27] Dawkins on Aljazeera

LOGICAL AND MATHEM TRUTH ON THE ONE HAND, AND EMPIRICAL TRUTH ON THE OTHER ARE OF COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NATURES.

Not necessarily, to me these work in tandem to discover truths in our world. You're right though, logic, and math are deductive enterprises, Empirical truth is based on what we collect as evidence and are inductive but it isn't always the case that these are completely separate from one another.

Case in point: Let's say you wanted to prove that racist hiring practices exist. So you send out thousands of otherwise exactly similar resumes with one caveat - you change the names around so one is stereotypically white i.e. "John Smith" and the other stereotypically black i.e. "Tayshawn Marquis". Send out thousands of these in a large number of markets across the country, and collect data on the number of call backs/interview offers you get.

The first part of that experiment is empirical data collection. it's inductive. The method you use to decide whether there really is a difference between call backs/ offers however is pure math. it's statistics. It's central limit theorem, it's convergence in probability, and pretty much everything that your research design allows you to do.

Does it get you absolute truth? Nope... but it does get you quantifiable uncertainty enough to say seeing the differences in call back from your data has say a 1 in 1000 chances of happening assuming that racism didn't exist. That allows you to falsify or reject that claim (racism in hiring practices doesn't exist) as preposterous.

The key here is that your belief that racism in hiring practices exist isn't based off of anecdote, or gut feeling, or religious texts, etc. it's based on empirical evidence logically supported by deductive truths from math/statistics. (Note this was an actual research project some folks at UChicago did a while ago.). That belief now has stronger justification claims than it otherwise would have had (though it doesn't preclude the truth value of say someone with this belief based on anecdote etc.)

LOGICAL AND MATHEM TRUTH ON THE ONE HAND, AND EMPIRICAL TRUTH ON THE OTHER ARE OF COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NATURES.

a strongly held belief or theory

THEORIES CANNOT BE HELD, ONLY PROPOUNDED

2013/7/25 Mathew Goldstein <[address removed]>

I am not changing anything. Faith: "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." And "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Yes, it is also sometimes defined as signifying a strong belief, but clearly the prevailing distinction between faith and belief more generally is that faith is a belief that is held either without any empirical justification, or out of proportion to the available empirical evidences. Synonyms include trust and loyalty. Since faith is a belief that is not held proportionate to the available empirical evidences, it also tends to be a strongly held belief. People who hold beliefs in proportion to the available evidences hold their beliefs with different degrees of conviction.

Someone who does not believe that the sun will rise tomorrow is wrong. someone who believes there is no danger to them self in walking past the leading edge of a cliff is wrong. This is true for everyone, there is no difference here if the someone is you or if it anyone else. What you like to do is distinguish between yourself and everyone else and apply a normal, functional standard to yourself and a different, anything goes, abnormal, dysfunctional standard to everyone else. There is no proper justification for doing that. Your status in our universe is no different from everyone else's status.

noun

a strongly held belief or theory: the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe

The example given is a scientific example. If we are going to change the meaning of a lexicon, then I guess you are correct.

Also, I believe if someone were to walk off the edge of a cliff, then it is subjective and I have no problem with it. I am agnostic, but I am too logical and fearful to perform such an act. Life is valuable to the individual. If one wants to take his or her own life, then so be it. However, when another takes a life from another, then I have a problem because it is now a crime.

Agnostics reason all the time. Since there is so much "uncertainty" in life. I judge on a case by case basis. I could never give a universal and blanket condemnation about any proposition. Even "scientific theories" change when challenged, if a set of evidence warrants it.

Why truth? Why not "untruth, uncertainty, or even ignorance"? ...not as its coarseness, but refinement. this will to truth is going to tempt us to many a hazardous enterprise. A celebrated veracity which many have spoken with reverence!! We must began to recognize "untruth" as a condition of life....to renounce false judgement, would be to renounce life.

No, belief is not a synonym for faith. Faith is a type of belief that is not properly justified. Outside of social contexts, we should avoid faith, we should not reach conclusions about how the universe works with faith.

We see many people foolishly elevating belief for the sake of belief itself to a virtue and we want to distance ourselves from that folly. Some people think they accomplish this distancing by dropping the word belief, along with word faith, from their vocabulary. I disagree. Belief is the right word and it applies here. There is nothing wrong with having beliefs, all educated adults should have lots of well justified beliefs. I think a much better way to distance ourselves from the folly of elevating faith to a virtue is to emphasize empiricism.

You wrote, ¨we are fully justified in believing definitively that this conclusion is correct because all of modern history shows that this method is the most reliable in producing successful results.¨

Yes, ¨belief¨ and not ¨knowing¨ is correct. I can believe via empiricism to conclude logically, but it does not incorporate ¨truth¨. Why is it so hard for people to simply admit that they do not ¨know¨ something to simply accept that fact. It is ok not to ¨know¨ really.

Not having certainty, and not being justified in reaching a definitive conclusion, are not the same. We all reach definitive conclusions in the presence of uncertainty. Again, if the available evidences strongly favor one conclusion over the competing conclusions then we are fully justified in believing definitively that this conclusion is correct because all of modern history shows that this method is the most reliable in producing successful results. The evidences strongly favor the conclusions that minds are always physical, that our universe is indifferent to life, that life is chemical, that our multiverse sums to nothing and exists because nothing is unstable. All of these evidences conflict with the supernatural universe conclusion. People are not agnostic when the evidences are not agnostic. When the evidences have an overall direction people follow the evidences to the corresponding conclusion. Everyone does this. This is why people do not walk past the leading edge of cliffs.

Mathematics is logical rules, it defines what could true. By matching what is observed to mathematical rules we can sometimes find a logic behind what is true.

I agree that morality is a useful concept as well. Because ¨certainty¨ is always in question, I will remain agnostic for that reason alone. Math is certain because we created it. Math is not ¨intrinsically¨ certain. Man created it to build and perform other useful act. I believe some things are inexplicable and appears to be a ¨miracle¨ to me. I am a man of science. I have a PhD in Epidemiology and I still question science as a ¨certainty¨

¨God¨ is one of those things. What do you mean by ¨God¨ is the real question. I think it is a power that is inexplicable....no aims...no intentions...no purpose...to me it is just a power....i do not pray because i do not know it this thing call ¨God¨ wants to be praised.

BY my definition, a ¨God¨ could exist. This is why I am agnostic. Therefore, I do not know anything for ¨certain¨ so, I am always open to hear varying opinions.

Reece

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Joseph B <[address removed]> wrote:

That's part of the reason why I actually like Sam Harris's frame on this. He definitely leans utilitarian, but if it's "Maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures" that precludes things like hedonistic excess, or inflicting suffering on someone for personal gain. But yea, like Matthew said, no doubt morality is a tough question to precisely define that nonetheless is a useful concept.

I would like to remark that some participants have endeavoured to deduce morality from utility, i.e. morality is a form of maximiing pleasure or minimizing suffering, by means of a complex aggregation of individual pleasures and sufferings. The original utilitarians like Bentham were condemned by Christians because the latter held utilitarianism's underlying hedonism to be profoundly immoral. For example, many moral duties oppose the plesure principle.

How do you explain this contradiction?.

Merely aggregating pleasure and suffering becomes dubious when one person's pleasere is reduced in order to increase that of eomeone else.

2013/7/22 Maurice Edmonds <[address removed]>

Carl,

That was emphasize in that manner on purpose because the conversation referencing "evil vs good". Bush claimed Saadam was "evil" on many occasions. Of course, a much broader perspective is in order.

I approve your condemnation of
the Bush. However I find your arguments rather feeble. You write "Bush claimed
that Saddam was "evil" so he killed him. I do not believe we
should be able to enter another country and impose our will because we do not
believe in their philosophy" Why do you assume that Saddam represented
Iraq's "philosophy". He was never elected to office and was widely
hated.

Valid grounds
for invading a country can be provided only by international law. In this case
they were lacking. There is no need to speculate about anyone's
"philosophy".

I am continually
amazed by Americans' ignorance and disregard for international law, even on the part of those who
criticise US imperialism. In weaker countries critics of imperialist
aggression constantly cite international law. At least I have personally observed
that in Latin American and Europe.

This is a
serious problem. Mere moralistic denunciation can easily be derailed into
demagogic and opportunistic paths. That is because morality is not
codified and arranged hierarchically as is international law. That makes it
easy to squeal about one moral rule while blatantly ignoring others.

2013/7/22 Maurice Edmonds <[address removed]>

Joe,

You make a very strong and valid point. However, I believe that you and I disagree with the term "truth". You assume that you have knowledge of it. I am not implying that it is "ok" to commit genocide. However, we must investigate before we conclude. I mean with "any" questionable preposition no matter how absurd it may seem.

Bush claimed that Saddam was "evil" so he killed him. I do not believe we should be able to enter another country and impose our will because we do not believe in their philosophy.

I think the United Nations should have stopped Bush. We must thoroughly investigate and get others involved and conclude with a general consensus. You are over exaggerating my agnostic disposition.

Reece

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Joseph B <[address removed]> wrote:

"I am not referring to "law". We have a "right" to be unethical, amoral, or non-religious without breaking laws. There is a clear and distinct difference. You cannot judge a culture for it's actions because we "disagree" if it is not breaking their laws."

See but this conflates what is legal with what is ethical (Which is something btw, folks in the illegal immigration debate always confuse). The odd part is, if a society for example, in their legal system removed your right to be "unethical, amoral, or non-religious" then under an ethically agnostic position you would be perfectly ok with that, since you can't judge a culture for it's actions. It was legal in Germany to find jews hiding in basements and report them to the Gestapo to go to concentration camps. That's legal, but most certainly unethical.

Look a culture isn't being judged because I just happen to disagree, a culture ought to be judged in whether or not certain practices promote the well-being of conscious creatures. Nobody is ignoring the power of religion... on the contrary I'm very much aware of it's power, good and bad. The key problem I have with religion is precisely how Matthew framed it... It's in the "how we know what we know". And a system that relies on revealed knowledge means it is impervious to evidence. I can tell you that homosexual behavior exist in nature, that it isn't a conscious choice as per neuroscience or psychology, that there is no statistically significant difference in deviant behavior between homosexuals and heterosexuals, etc. but your ethical system would be impervious to all that evidence if your revealed text condemns it. Even more pernicious, is the tendency to then use the mantle of science to justify a conclusion (in this case say homosexuality is wrong) to fit the evidence accordingly, muddling the truth between rigorous studies and bunk science funded by think tanks etc. .

The postmodernists fought this fight in the 90's and royally lost. I think the subjectivist appeal is in how exotic a reality it creates (that there truly is no external out there, that it's all constructed separately by everyone), and it's a convenient philosophy to avoid the act of judging. Open mindedness isn't about accepting the truth of everything. It's about the ability to entertain ideas and understand it using logic, but ultimately judging on the basis of logic, reason, and evidence. To say for example that genocide can't be judged because a german regime claims "hey, it's our cultural practice to you know, exterminate jews" is patently absurd. I wouldn't judge that wrong simply because I disagree with it, but because the harm of killing millions of people for no good reason is self-evident.

Cross cultural-ism is "subjective" in the realm of ethics, I am not referring to "law". We have a "right" to be unethical, amoral, or non-religious without breaking laws. There is a clear and distinct difference. You cannot judge a culture for it's actions because we "disagree" if it is not breaking their laws. Who are we to make that decision?

Again, I am agnostic because I am open-minded and I do not assume I have answers to a complex and crude question involving religion, ethics or morality.

We simply cannot ignore the power of religion and its effects on society. I think that is fascinating. I also think it is a fantasy similar to Santa Clause..

There is nothing "wrong" with making up "realities" to best "fit" our understanding and produce a "subjective" quality of life.

We all do it, including the atheist! I simply believe that atheist assert a more "logical" approach when inferring. I cannot not be an atheist because I do not have answers, only questions, which makes me ignorant. I am ok without "knowing" however, I will not cease seeking.

"God is a rude and crude answer - a piece of indelicacy to us thinkers" Nietzsche

Reece

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Joseph B <[address removed]> wrote:

I get the feeling that what we're doing is applying a simple heuristic ("always be fair: certainty with anything is wrong") and that simple heuristic is the genesis of the entire agnostic argument. Take this heuristic to an extreme and there really is no difference between an STD vaccination program and genital mutilation, genocide and public education.

Universal right and wrong is actually something that anthropologists are finding, much in the same sense of Chomsky's universal grammar. The details of the ethical systems may differ, but we are born with a set of "guidelines" that we use to navigate the world. There's a large number of independently developed versions of the Golden Rule around the world for example, you can find that rule from as far away as India, to nearly all of the major religions. (Shermer covers research into these global principles in the Science of Good and Evil) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is another example of this, with most member countries signing on (The USSR + satellites didn't because of free entry/exit of countries, and the middle east didn't because it allowed apostasy)

The reason we have so many problems right now is simply because people use a combination of instinct, social pressures from others around them, and social institutions like religion to not only decide their day to day ethical decisions, but what the "ideal" decision/ the standard moral code is. Like Matthew has brought up, the issue here is in the "how" we got these codes in the first place. We may have a built in moral code, but we also have built in things like aggression and violence, tribal loyalties etc. that get in the way, and are codified in these religious texts (as you would expect from an ethical system built over 2,000 years ago or even older). It's why for example it was perfectly ok to kill infidels, or simply tax them, to own slaves, in these texts.

If we say that all of morality is simply "subjective", then there is no way for any of us to condemn genocide, or child abuse, rape, torture, etc. Sam Harris for example, brought up the practice of Kundun? in Albania, where you get to kill a relative of a killer. If the basis of how you act is "revealed knowledge" or part of "cultural practices" then we can most definitely expect the same problems we've been having today... you can't condemn any of this and we just wring our hands. Ethics is relative because people fear criticizing shitty practices out of the fear that they're "culturally imposing values" on others. They're relative because no major player is willing to call out the bad in some religions out of "respect"... And while I can understand the fear given the horrific screw up the West has done with colonialism, truth ought to be independent of it's purveyor... its truth value ought to be evaluated on its own merits. If a child molesting killer told you to fasten your seatbelt, the fact that this is a despicable human being doesn't make his advice right or wrong.

Finally, a universal set of ethics doesn't mean there's only ONE way to be ethical. Again, like Sam Harris brought up, there could be a number of different ways to get to societies that foster the well being of conscious creatures. Asking for a global discussion on this based on reason isn't the same as asking that it be forced at the barrel of a gun. I don't think any of us is suggesting we invade Saudi Arabia for not allowing women to drive, but we certainly ought to condemn it as vocally as we can. If however a genocide is underway in say Rwanda, it's the agnostic position to me that's dangerous, because that's precisely the situation where you would want immediate action. It's not relative, it's not culturally subjective, it's simply wrong and we ought to act accordingly.

You are correct; however, that is not a good reason to refrain from agnosticism. I think religion is "good' for the weak. I understand that critical analysis is not for everyone and one's psyche may not be able to handle "reality" of our created "false and synthetic" world. Truth is not held by atheist or theist. However, I believe atheist assert a more logical approach. This is why a member of an atheist club, but not a member of any religious affiliations. I do not believe religious groups apply empiricism, in the realm of epistemology to reason. This is a major problem to me.

Maurice, some Catholics like to argue that Aquinas favored metaphorical interpretation of the bible and the Church and its followers were always non-literalist. But this is false history. Aquinas himself was selectively a literalist. He believed that Adam was literally the first human created from the earth and Eve was literally created from one of his ribs and they were literally the common original parental ancestors of everyone alive because god said so in the bible. He was a non-literalist only to extent newly available secular knowledge conflicted with the bible compelled him to back peddle from the more complete literalism that was endorsed by the earlier Church. Like Joseph says, all of history is one-sided this way. All knowledge is naturalistic, supernatural knowledge assertions from all religions are false across the board, and have been in continuous retreat for many hundreds of years. At some point, with the score millions for naturalism to zero for supernaturalism, its time to stop being agnostic and acknowledge that religion and supernaturalism were routed and defeated hundreds of years ago, religion and supernaturalism have been non-competitive and dying for a long time. That a majority of people do not acknowledge this is their failure, it is not a good excuse for agnosticism.

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system.
Thank you.

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system.
Thank you.

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system.
Thank you.

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system.
Thank you.

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system.
Thank you.

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system.
Thank you.

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system.
Thank you.

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system.
Thank you.

We're about:

The DC Atheist Meetup is a project of DC Region Atheists. We are an educational and philosophical group serving Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia that fosters and advances the growth of non-religious communities by providing both a social setting and forums to discuss intellectual topics pertinent to their concerns and by working with other like-minded groups. We educate and encourage critical thinking through rational and respectful dialog between our members and others.

DC Region Atheists is a chapter of the Washington Area Secular Humanists. WASH is a non-profit 501c3 organization with all contributions being tax deductible. Contributions are very much encouraged and can be made here.